TakeYouToTasker

Pray for Aaron.

Oh no!!!

Zach Brown split out wide in coverage. Also, not a hold on Kyle there?

Landry just stole Darby's lunch money and gave him a swirly.

Ajayi looking very good so far.

Beautiful.

Big Nipples?

Do you truly not understand how poorly you're doing in this argument? Or maybe you do, given that you've thrown out charges of racism and run away.

Why are you dismissing Kaepernick's own statement saying that he himself has felt oppressed?

If you want to dispute them, bring evidence. The fact is that the non-nuclear family is the single greatest predictor of inter-generational poverty. Multiple studies conducted by both left and right leaning organizations have borne this out. Your feeling to the contrary don't count as evidence.

Today I learned that you can only get legitimate news from progressive propaganda factories and that conservative leaning news agencies are hate factories. In what ways are black Americans oppressed?

Waiting for someone to argue that Ray Rice was given more support than Josh Brown by his team and the NFL because he is black.

LOL Flawless victory.

Right, but now Shady McCoy can't be placed on the active roster. Fire Whaley.

I don't like his hair for the exact same reason I don't like Clay Matthews' hair. It's unprofessional, low-rent, and designed to draw attention to himself. If you want to be treated like a serious adult, dress the !@#$ing part. If you want to rock the same hairstyle as early Carrot-Top, expect to be viewed as a clown, like Carrot-Top.

If it was a joke, that's fine. Your argument is the reason comedians won't come to college campuses any more.

Good. I much prefer this to frozen Tyrod.

The NFL has a vested interest in not publicizing DV events which do not come to light on their own. It's not dis-similar to the argument Kirby makes in regards to the NBA not testing for marijuana, because testing creates an environment in which players will test positive, with each positive test being a black eye for the league.

This thread is 284 pages long, and has meandered all over the map. This particular jaunt only occupied a single page, so I think you'll be able to live with it.

I made a joke, dingbat. I said so in this post. Further, natural intelligence is hereditary. It wouldn't be impacted by family structure.

Their feelings don't matter, as long as their feelings run counter to the facts. It is counter productive to treat a false narrative as if it has any value whatsoever.

To quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings" It is not bigoted to point out facts. They will always persist, despite whatever social agenda is being pushed. It is ignorant, counter productive, and harmful to pretend that all outcomes will be the same for all situation, and that there is no optimal situation. Correct, as well as a higher likelihood of economic mobility. This is either you projecting, or outright lying. I never made any such claim, nor do I believe this. As I've said many times, I strenuously believe in equality under the law, and don't believe that homosexuals should be prevented from adopting, just as I don't believe that single motherhood or divorce should be illegal. The difference is that I do acknowledge a strong statistical likelihood that the children of these non-nuclear families will be worse off. I support the right to enter in to them, absolutely. It's none of my business what is in someone else's heart, or what happens in their bedroom. Again, either projecting or lying here. I look at data, and acknowledge the fact that non-nuclear families produce worse outcomes on average. I make no claims at all about individuals of any group who may either exceed or fail to achieve the mean of their statistical group. Being from a non-nuclear family is not a guarantee of worse results, it simply makes worse results more likely. Tons, because you can't differentiate between statistics and bigotry.

Statistically that kid is screwed relative to the mean outcome of a kid in a nuclear family. You cannot replace the nuclear family in a 1:1 way. Of course there are things that can be done to help create a better outcome to the child: extended family, churches, and other people naturally close to the family in question can rally around them and help to try to fill in the gaps, but nothing can truly replace the role of a interested mother or father in a child's life. And of course there will be children from non-nuclear families who achieve excellent outcomes, and children who come from nuclear families who fail miserably on a moral or economic level, or both.

Reading comprehension is failing you. I never said homosexuality was a choice. I believe it's some combination of nature-nurture, and that there is a sliding scale on which all people can be found. What I said is that entering into a non-nuclear family arrangement is a choice. I also said that it is a fact that non-nuclear families consistently lead to worse results statistically. And I'll continue to point out that it's a statistical reality that you cannot escape, and that equality under the law, which I unequivocally support, does not magically confer equal results, as some choices will always lead to worse outcomes than others. So what is it that you have an issue with that you believe makes me a bad person? - That fact that non-nuclear families lead to statistically worse outcomes? - The fact that entering into a non-nuclear family is a choice? - The fact that I believe in full equality under the law? - The fact that all choices are not equal, and some lead to worse outcomes than others? - The fact that human evolution has led us to a place where the most biologically normal situation consistently generates the best statistical results? Which is it that you find so reprehensible? A parent in a nuclear household who dies, leaving behind a non-nuclear household is a statistical outlier. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done to replace the parent. You hate facts, and call me out on it because you'd prefer a reality based on feelings. Smart. /golfclap

Fantastic find! Thanks for sharing.